II. Morphology112
Zwicky, Arnold M./Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1983 Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T. In: Language 59, 502Ϫ513.
Irit Meir, Haifa (Israel)
6. Plurality
1. Introduction
2. Nouns and noun phrases
3. Pronouns, numeral incorporation, and number signs
4. Verb agreement and classifier verbs
5. Pluralization across modalities
6. Conclusion
7. Literature
Abstract
Both sign and spoken languages make use of a variety of plural marking strategies. The
choice of strategy depends on lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic properties of
the sign to be modified. The description of basic plural patterns is supplemented by a
typological investigation of plural marking across sign languages. In addition, we discuss
the realization of the plural feature within noun phrases, the expression of plural with
pronouns as well as with agreement and classifier verbs, and the structure of number
systems in sign languages. Finally, we compare pluralization in spoken languages to the
patterns found in sign languages and account for the modality-specific properties of
plural formation in sign languages.
1. Introduction
The topic of this chapter is pluralization in sign language. All natural languages seem
to have means to distinguish a single entity (singular) from a number of entities (plural).
This distinction is expressed by a difference in the grammatical category number.
Typically, the singular is the unmarked form, whereas the plural is the marked form,
which is derived from the singular by specific morphological operations such as affixation,
stem internal change, or reduplication. Plural can be expressed on nouns, pronouns,
demonstratives, determiners, verbs, adjectives, and even prepositions. In this
chapter, we will be mainly concerned with singular and plural forms although many
languages have more fine-grained distinctions such as, for example, singular, dual, and
plural (but see sections 3 and 4 that show that sign languages also allow for more finegrained
distinctions).
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 113
Patterns of plural marking have been described for a number of different sign languages:
see Jones and Mohr (1975), Wilbur (1987), Valli and Lucas (1992), and Perry
(2004) for American Sign Language (ASL, also see chapters 7, 11, and 13); Skant et
al. (2002) for Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS); Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999) for British
Sign Language (BSL, also see chapter 11); Perniss (2001) and Pfau and Steinbach
(2005b, 2006b) for German Sign Language (DGS); Heyerick and van Braeckevelt
(2008) and Heyerick et al. (2009) for Flemish Sign Language (VGT); Schmaling (2000)
for Hausa Sign Language (Hausa SL); Zeshan (2000) for Indopakistani Sign Language
(IPSL); Stavans (1996) for Israeli Sign Language (Israeli SL); Pizzuto and Corazza
(1996) for Italian Sign Language (LIS); Nijhof and Zwitserlood (1999) for Sign Language
of the Netherlands (NGT); and Kubuş (2008) and Zwitserlood, Perniss, and
Özyürek (2011) for Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Although there are many (brief)
descriptions of plural marking in individual sign languages (but only a few theoretical
analyses), a comprehensive (cross-modal) typological study on pluralization in the visual-manual
modality is still lacking. Parts of this chapter build on Pfau and Steinbach
(2005b, 2006b), who provide a comprehensive overview of plural marking in DGS and
discuss typological variation and modality-specific and modality-independent aspects
of pluralization in sign languages.
In section 2, we start our investigation with the nominal domain and discuss plural
marking on nouns and noun phrases. We first describe the basic patterns of plural
marking, which are attested in many different sign languages, namely (two kinds of)
reduplication and zero marking. Then we discuss typological differences between sign
languages. In section 3, we address pronouns, number signs, and numeral incorporation.
Section 4 turns to the verbal domain and describes plural marking on agreement and
classifier verbs. Section 5 gives a brief typological survey of typical patterns of plural
formation in spoken languages and discusses similarities and differences between spoken
and sign languages. We also try to account for the modality-specific properties of
pluralization in sign languages described in the previous sections. Finally, the main
findings of this chapter are summarized in section 6.
2. Nouns and noun phrases
Descriptions of pluralization in many different sign languages show that within a single
sign language, various plural marking strategies may exist. On the one hand, certain
strategies such as reduplication and the use of numerals and quantifiers are attested in
most sign languages. On the other hand, sign languages differ from each other to a
certain degree with respect to the morphological realization of plural features. Firstly
in this section, we discuss the realization of the plural feature on the noun (section
2.1). Then, we turn to pluralization and plural agreement within noun phrases (section
2.2). We illustrate the basic patterns with examples from DGS but also include examples
from other sign languages to illustrate typological variation.
2.1. Nominal number inflection
Two general patterns of nominal plural formation that are mentioned frequently in the
literature are zero marking and reduplication (or, to be more precise, triplication, see
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology114
below) of the noun. Reduplication typically comes in two types: (i) simple reduplication
and (ii) sideward reduplication. Interestingly, both kinds of reduplication only apply
to certain kinds of nouns. We will see that the choice of strategy depends on phonological
features of the underlying noun (for phonological features, cf. chapter 3, Phonology).
Hence, we are dealing with phonologically triggered allomorphy and the pluralization
patterns in sign languages can be compared to phonologically constrained plural
allomorphy found in many spoken languages. We come back to this issue in section 5.
2.1.1. Phonological features and plural marking strategies
In (1), we provide an overview of the phonological features constraining nominal plural
marking in DGS (and many other sign languages) and the corresponding plural marking
strategies (cf. Pfau/Steinbach 2005b, 2006b). As illustrated in (1), in DGS plural
marking, some of these features depend on others. The distinction between complex
and simple movement, for instance, is only relevant for non-body anchored nouns.
Moreover, the distinction between lateral and midsagittal place of articulation applies
only to non-body anchored nouns performed with a simple movement. Consequently,
we arrive at four different classes (1aϪd) and potentially four different patterns of
plural marking. However, since all nouns phonologically specified for either complex
movement or body anchored use the same pattern (zero marking) and reduplication
comes in two types, we have basically two strategies of plural marking all together:
(i) (two kinds of) reduplication and (ii) zero marking.
(1) phonological feature plural marking strategy
a. body anchored zero marking
non-body anchored
b. (i) complex movement zero marking
(ii) simple movement
c. (iia) midsagittal place of articulation simple reduplication
d. (iib) lateral place of articulation sideward reduplication
It will become clear in the examples below that plural reduplication usually involves
two repetitions. Moreover, various articulatory factors may influence the number of
repetitions: (i) the effort of production (more complex signs like, e.g., vase tend to be
repeated only once), (ii) the speed of articulation, and (iii) the syllable structure of a
mouthing that co-occurs with a sign since the manual and the non-manual part tend
to be synchronized (cf. Nijhof/Zwitserlood 1999; Pfau/Steinbach 2006b). In addition,
the prosodic structure may influence the number of repetitions, which seems to increase
in prosodically prominent positions, for instance, at the end of a prosodic domain
or in a position marked as focus (Sandler 1999; cf. also chapter 13 on noun
phrases). Finally, we find some individual (and probably stylistic) variation among signers
with respect to the number of repetitions. While some signers repeat the base
noun twice, others may either repeat it only once or three times. Although additional
repetitions may emphasize certain aspects of meaning, we assume that the distinction
between reduplication and triplication is not part of the morphosyntax of plural marking
proper. Because two repetitions (i.e. triplication) appears to be the most common
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 115
pattern, the following discussion of the data is based on this pattern. To simplify matters,
we will use the established term ‘reduplication’ to describe this specific morphological
operation of plural marking in sign languages. We will address the difference
between reduplication and triplication in more detail in section 5 below. Let us first
have a closer look at the four classes listed in (1).
2.1.2. Zero marking
In DGS, body anchored nouns (1a) pattern with non-body anchored nouns which are
lexically specified for a complex movement (1b) in that both types do not permit the
overt morphological realization of the plural feature. In both cases, zero marking is
the only grammatical option. As can be seen in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 above, simple as
well as sideward reduplication leads to ungrammaticality with these nouns. Note that
in the glosses, plural reduplication is indicated by ‘CC’, whereby every ‘C’ represents
one repetition of the base form. Hence the ungrammatical form womanCC in Figure
6.1b would be performed three times in total. ‘>’ indicates a sideward movement,
that is, the combination of both symbols ‘>C>C’ stands for sideward plural reduplication.
The direction of sideward movement depends on the handedness of the signer.
Obviously, in DGS, phonological features may block overt plural marking. Both
kinds of plural reduplication are incompatible with the inherent place of articulation
feature body anchored and the complex movement features repeat, circle, and alternatFig.
6.1: Plural marking with the body anchored noun woman in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by
Buske Verlag. Reprinted with permission.
Fig. 6.2: Plural marking with the complex movement noun bike in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by
Buske Verlag. Reprinted with permission.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology116
ing. Like many other morphological processes in sign languages, such as agreement (cf.
chapter 7) or reciprocal marking (Pfau/Steinbach 2003), plural marking is also constrained
by phonological features of the underlying sign. We come back to the influence
of phonology in section 5. Interestingly, the features that block plural reduplication
do not block similar kinds of reduplication in aspectual and reciprocal marking.
Hence, it appears that certain phonological features only constrain specific morphological
processes (Pfau/Steinbach 2006b).
2.1.3. Reduplication
So far, we have seen that reduplication is not an option for DGS nouns that are body
anchored or involve complex movement. By contrast, non-body anchored midsagittal
and lateral nouns permit reduplication. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 illustrate that for symmetrical
midsagittal nouns such as book, the plural form is marked by simple reduplication
of the whole sign, whereas the crucial morphological modification of non-body anchored
lateral nouns such as child is sideward reduplication. Sideward reduplication
is a clear example of partial reduplication since the reduplicant(s) are performed with
a shorter movement. The case of simple reduplication is not as clear. Typically, the
reduplicant(s) are performed with the same movement as the base; in this case, simple
reduplication would be an example of complete reduplication. Occasionally, however,
Fig. 6.3: Plural marking with the midsagittal noun book in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by Buske
Verlag. Reprinted with permission.
Fig. 6.4: Plural marking with the lateral noun child in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by Buske Verlag.
Reprinted with permission.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 117
the reduplicant(s) are performed with a reduced movement and thus, we are dealing
with partial reduplication.
Note that body-anchored nouns denoting human beings have an alternative way of
plural marking that involves reduplication. The plural form of nouns like woman, man,
or doctor can be formed by means of the noun person. Since person is a one-handed
lateral sign, its plural form in (2) involves sideward reduplication. Syntactically, person
is inserted right-adjacent to the noun. Semantically, person is simply an alternative
plural marker for a specific class of nouns without additional meaning.
(2) woman person>C>C [DGS]
‘women’
2.1.4. Typological variation
The basic strategies described for DGS are also found in many other sign languages
(see the references listed at the beginning of this chapter). Typologically, reduplication
and zero marking seem to be the basic strategies of plural marking across sign languages.
Likewise, the constraints on plural formation are very similar to the ones described
for DGS. In BSL, for example, pluralization also involves reduplication and
sideward movement. According to Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999), the plural form of
some nouns is marked by a ‘distributive bound plural morpheme’, which triggers two
repetitions (i.e. triplication) of the underlying noun. Both repetitions are performed in
different locations. Like sideward reduplication in DGS, sideward reduplication in BSL
is only possible with non-body anchored nouns and signs without inherent complex
movement. The plural of body anchored nouns and nouns with complex movement is
marked without any reduplication, i.e. the only remaining option for these nouns is
zero marking. Likewise, Pizzuto and Corazza (1996) describe pluralization patterns for
LIS, which are very similar to those described for DGS and BSL. Again, reduplication
is the basic means of plural formation. Pizzuto and Corazza also distinguish between
body anchored nouns and nouns signed in the neutral sign space. The latter are subdivided
into signs involving simple movement and signs involving complex movement.
As in DGS and BSL, reduplication is only possible for signs performed in the neutral
sign space without complex movement.
Although the patterns of plural formation appear to be strikingly similar across sign
languages, we also find some variation, which mainly results from differences in the
phonological restrictions on plural formation and the available manual and non-manual
plural markers. A typological difference in the phonological restrictions can be
found between DGS, on the one hand, and ASL and NGT, on the other. Unlike DGS,
NGT allows simple reduplication of at least some body anchored nouns like glasses
and man (cf. Nijhof/Zwitserlood 1999; Harder 2003; Pfau/Steinbach 2006b). In DGS,
simple reduplication is neither possible for the phonologically identical sign glasses,
nor for the phonologically similar sign man. While there are differences with respect
to the behavior of body anchored nouns, nouns with inherent complex movement and
nouns performed in the lateral sign space or symmetrically to the midsagittal plane
seem to behave alike in DGS and NGT. Only the latter permit sideward reduplication
in both sign languages.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology118
ASL also differs from DGS in that reduplication in plural formation is less constrained.
Moreover, ASL uses additional plural marking strategies. Only one of the
four strategies of plural formation in ASL discussed in Wilbur (1987) is also found in
DGS. The first strategy applies to nouns articulated with one hand at a location on the
face. With these nouns the plural form is realized by repeating the sign alternately with
both hands. The second strategy applies to nouns that make contact with some body
part or involve a change of orientation. In this case, the plural form is realized by
reduplication. Typically, a horizontal arc path movement is added. The third strategy
holds for nouns that involve some kind of secondary movement. Such nouns are pluralized
without reduplication by continuing the secondary movement (and possibly by
adding a horizontal arc path movement). The fourth strategy is similar to that which
has been described for DGS above: nouns that have inherent repetition of movement
in their singular form cannot undergo reduplication. Hence, in contrast to DGS, ASL
permits plural reduplication of some body anchored nouns and nouns with complex
movement and has a specific plural morpheme, i.e. a horizontal arc path. Moreover,
plural reduplication of secondary movements is only possible in ASL but not in DGS.
However, both languages permit sideward reduplication of lateral nouns and simple
reduplication of midsagittal nouns.
Skant et al. (2002) describe an interesting plural marking strategy in ÖGS which is
similar to the first strategy found in ASL. With some two-handed signs like high-risebuilding,
in which both hands perform a parallel upward movement, the plural is
expressed by a repeated alternating movement of both hands. With one-handed nouns,
the non-dominant hand can be added to perform the alternating movement expressing
the plural feature. This strategy can be analyzed as a modality-specific stem internal
change. A similar strategy is reported in Heyerick and van Braeckevelt (2008) and
Heyerick et al. (2009), who mention that in VGT, two referents (i.e. dual) can be
expressed by articulating a one-handed sign with two hands, i.e. ‘double articulation’.
A non-manual plural marker has been reported for LIS (cf. Pizzuto/Corazza 1996).
With many body anchored nouns the plural form is signed with an accompanying head
movement from left to right (at least three times). In addition, each movement is
marked with a head-nod. Moreover, in LIS inherent (lexical) repetitions tend to be
reduced to a single movement if the non-manual head movement accompanies the
plural form of the noun.
Let us finally turn to two languages that mainly use the zero marking strategy. In
IPSL, all nouns can be interpreted as singular or plural because IPSL does not use
overt plural marking strategies such as simple or sideward reduplication (cf. Zeshan
2000). The interpretation of a noun depends on the syntactic and semantic context in
which it appears. Zeshan points out that the lateral noun child is the only noun in
IPSL with a morphologically marked plural form that occurs with some frequency. Just
like the phonologically similar lateral sign in DGS (cf. Figure 6.4 above), child in
IPSL also permits sideward reduplication. Likewise, Zwitserlood, Perniss, and Özyürek
(2011) report that TİD does not exhibit overt morphological marking of the plural
feature on the noun. Instead, plurality is expressed by a variety of spatial devices,
which reflect the topographic relations between the referents. These spatial devices
will be discussed in section 4 below in more detail. Zwitserlood, Perniss, and Özyürek
argue that although information about the number of referents falls out as a result of
the use of sign space, “the primary linguistic function of these devices is [...] not the
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 119
expression of plurality [...], but rather the depiction of referent location, on the one
hand, and predicate inflection, on the other hand”. They conclude that TİD, like IPSL,
does not have a productive morphological plural marker (but see Kubuş (2008) for a
different opinion).
The absence of overt plural marking in IPSL and TİD is, however, not exceptional.
We will see in the next subsection that in most sign languages, overt plural marking
(i.e. reduplication) is only possible if the noun phrase does not contain a numeral or
quantifier. Moreover, in contexts involving spatial localization, it is not the noun but
the classifier handshape that is (freely) reduplicated. Besides, Neidle (this volume)
argues that in ASL “reduplication may be correlated with prosodic prominence and
length” (cf. chapter 13 on noun phrases). Therefore, plural reduplication is more likely
to occur in prosodically prominent positions, i.e. in sentence-final position or in positions
marked as focus. Consequently, reduplication is only grammatical for a small class
of nouns in a limited set of contexts and even with lateral and midsagittal nouns we
frequently find zero marking. Hence, reduplication is expected to be rare although it
is the basic morphological means of plural formation in sign languages (cf. also BakerShenk/Cokely
1980).
2.1.5. Summary
Reduplication and zero marking appear to be two basic pluralization strategies in the
nominal domain attested in many different sign languages. Besides simple and sideward
reduplication, some sign languages have at their disposal (alternating) movement by
the non-dominant hand, reduplication of secondary movements, a horizontal arc path
movement, and non-manual means. The general phonological restrictions on overt plural
marking seem to be very similar across sign languages: sideward reduplication is
restricted to lateral nouns and simple movement to midsagittal nouns. Nouns with
complex movement only allow zero marking. Only within the class of body anchored
nouns do we find some variation between languages: some sign languages permit simple
reduplication of body anchored nouns, while others do not.
2.2. Pluralization and number agreement within noun phrases
This section deals with plural marking within the noun phrase, which is an important
domain for the realization of grammatical features such as gender, case, and number.
Therefore, in many languages, pluralization does not only affect nouns but also other
elements within the noun phrase such as determiners and adjectives. Moreover, we
find a considerable degree of variation in the realization of the number feature within
the noun phrase: while some languages show number agreement between nouns, adjectives,
and numerals or quantifiers, others do not. Here we focus on sign languages.
Spoken languages will be discussed in section 6. For number marking and number
agreement within the noun phrase, see also chapter 13 on noun phrases.
Languages with overt plural marking on head nouns have two options: they can
express the plural feature more than once within the noun phrase or they only express
plurality on one element within the noun phrase. In the latter case, plural is usually
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology120
(semantically) expressed by a numeral or quantifier and the head noun is not inflected
for number. Most sign languages belong to the second class of languages, i.e. languages
without number agreement within the noun phrase. In the previous subsection, we
have seen that in sign languages, plural reduplication is only found with some nouns
in some contexts and we already mentioned that one reason for this infrequency of
overt nominal plural marking is that simple and sideward reduplication is blocked
whenever a numeral or quantifier appears within the noun phrase, as is illustrated by
the DGS examples in (3ab). Similarly, in noun phrases containing an adjective, the
plural feature is only expressed on the head noun even if the adjective has all relevant
phonological properties for simple or sideward reduplication. Again, noun phrase internal
number agreement is blocked (3c).
(3) a. * many child>C>C a’. many child [DGS]
‘many children’ ‘many children’
b. * five bookCC b’. five book
‘five books’ ‘five books’
c. * child>C>C tall>C>C c’. child>C>C tall
‘tall children’ ‘tall children’
The prohibition against number agreement within the noun phrase is a clear tendency
but not a general property of all sign languages. ASL and Israeli SL are similar to
DGS in this respect (Wilbur 1987; Stavans 1996). In ASL, for instance, quantifiers like
many, which are frequently used in plurals, also block overt plural marking on the head
noun. Nevertheless, sign languages, like spoken languages, also differ from each other
with respect to number agreement within the noun phrase. In NGT, ÖGS (Skant et al.
2002), LIS (Pizzuto/Corazza 1996), and Hausa SL (Schmaling 2000), number agreement
within the noun phrase seems to be at least optional.
2.3. Summary
Given the phonological restrictions on plural marking and the restrictions on number
agreement, plural reduplication is correctly predicted to be rare in simple plurals. Although
reduplication can be considered the basic morphological plural marker, it is
rarely found in sign languages since it is blocked by phonological and syntactic constraints
(cf. also section 5 below). Table 6.1 illustrates the plural marking strategies and
the manual and non-manual plural markers used in different sign languages. ‘√’ stands
for overt marking and ‘:’ for zero marking. The strategy that seems to be typologically
less frequent or even nonexistent is given in parentheses. Note that Table 6.1 only
illustrates first tendencies. More typological research is necessary to get a clearer picture
of nominal plural marking in sign languages.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 121
Tab. 6.1: Plural marking strategies in sign languages
phonological feature
body anchored complex midsagittal lateral
movement
: : √ √
noun
(√) (√) (:) (:)
noun with
: :numeral/ : :
(√) (√)quantifier
– simple – simple – simple – sideward
reduplication reduplication reduplication reduplication
– double – horizontal – alternating
articulation arc path movements
– alternating movement
manual and non-
movements
manual plural
– horizontal
markers
arc path
movement
– head movement
and head
nod
3. Pronouns, numeral incorporation, and number signs
In spoken languages, pronouns usually realize at least two morphological features,
namely person and number. Similarly, sign language pronouns also realize these two
features. As opposed to spoken languages, however, sign languages do not employ
distinct forms (cf. English I, you, he/she/it, we, you, they) but systematically use the
sign space to express person and number. Concerning person, there is a long-standing
debate whether sign languages distinguish second and third person. By contrast, the
realization of number on pronouns is more straightforward (for a more detailed discussion
of this issue, cf. McBurney (2002), Cormier (2007), and chapter 11, Pronouns).
3.1. Pronouns
Sign languages typically distinguish singular, dual, and distributive and collective plural
forms of pronouns. In the singular form, a pronoun usually points with the index finger
directly to the location of its referent in sign space (the R-locus). The number of
extended fingers can correspond to the number of referents. In DGS, the extended
index and middle finger are used to form the dual pronoun 2-of-us which oscillates
back and forth between the two R-loci of the referents the pronoun is linked to. In
some sign languages, the extension of fingers can be used to indicate up to nine referents.
We come back to numeral incorporation below. The collective plural form of a
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology122
pronoun is realized with a sweeping movement across the locations in sign space associated
with the R-loci of the referents. These R-loci can either be in front of the signer
(non-first person) or next to the signer including the signer (first person). By contrast,
the distributive form involves multiple repetitions of the inherent short pointing movement
of the pronoun along an arc. Plural pronouns are usually less strictly related to
the R-loci of their referents than singular pronouns. An interesting question is, whether
sign languages have a privileged (lexicalized) dual pronoun, which is not derived by
numeral incorporation. The dual form seems to differ from number incorporated pronouns.
While the dual form is performed with a back and forth movement, pronouns
with numeral incorporation are performed with a circular movement. Moreover, number
marking for the dual form seems to be obligatory, whereas the marking of three or
more referents by numeral incorporation appears to be optional (cf. McBurney 2002).
3.2. Numeral incorporation
A modality-specific property of sign languages is the specific kind of numeral incorporation
found with pronouns, as illustrated in (4), and temporal expressions, as illustrated
in (5). Numeral incorporation has been documented for various sign languages
(see Liddell (1996) for ASL, chapter 11 on pronouns, for BSL, Perniss (2001) and
Mathur/Rathmann (2011) for DGS, Schmaling (2000) for Hausa SL, Zeshan (2000) for
IPSL, Stavans (1996) for Israeli SL, Zeshan (2002) for TİD, and Heyerick/van Braeckevelt
(2008) and Heyerick et al. (2009) for VGT).
(4) Numeral incorporation with pronouns
2-of-us, 3-of-us, …, 2-of-you, 3-of-you, …, 2-of-them, 3-of-them, … [DGS]
(5) Numeral incorporation with temporal expressions
a. 1-hour, 2-hour, 3-hour, … [DGS]
b. 1-week, 2-week, 3-week, …
c. 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, …
d. in-1-day, in-2-day, in-3-day, …
c. before-1-year, before-2-year, before-3-year, …
Pronouns and temporal expressions have the ability to ‘incorporate’ the handshape of
numerals. Usually, the handshape corresponds to the numeral used in a sign language
(cf. below). Number incorporated pronouns are performed with a small circular movement
in the location associated with the group of referents. Because of the physical
properties of the two manual articulators, sign languages can in principle incorporate
numbers up to ten. With pronouns, five seems to be the preferred upper limit of incorporation
(note, however, that examples with more than five are attested). With temporal
expressions, examples that incorporate numbers up to ten are more frequent. The
specific restrictions on pronominal numeral incorporation may be related to the following
difference between pronouns and temporal expressions. Unlike temporal expressions,
number incorporated pronouns involve a small horizontal circular movement in
a specific location of the sign space. This particular movement between the R-loci the
pronoun is linked to is harder to perform with two hands and may therefore be blocked
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 123
for phonetic reasons (cf. also section 4 for phonetic blocking of plural forms of agreement
verbs). By contrast, temporal expressions are not linked to loci in the sign space.
Therefore, a two-handed variant is generally easier to perform. Finally note that phonological
properties of individual number signs such as the specific movement pattern
of ten in ASL can block numeral incorporation.
3.3. Number signs
So far, we have seen that numeral incorporation targets the handshape of the corresponding
number sign. But where do the number signs come from? Number systems
of sign languages are constrained by the physical properties of the articulators. Since
sign languages use two manual articulators with five fingers each, they can directly
express the numbers 1 to 10 by extension of the fingers. Hence, the number systems
used in many sign languages have a transparent gestural basis. For number systems in
different sign languages, see Leybaert and van Cutsem (2002), Iversen, Nuerk, and
Willmes (2004), Iversen et al. (2006), Iversen (2008), Fernández Viader and Fuentes
(2008), McKee, McKee, and Major (2008), and Fuentes et al. (2010).
Since the manual articulators have 10 fingers, the base of many sign language number
systems is usually 10. The DGS number system is based on 10 with a sub base of
5. By contrast, ASL uses a number system that is only based on 10. In addition to this
typological variation, we also find variation within a system. This ‘dialectal’ variation
may affect the use of extended fingers, the use of movement to express numbers higher
than 10, or idiosyncratic number signs. Let us consider the number system of DGS
first. The first five numbers are realized through finger extension on the dominant
hand. one is expressed with one finger extended (either thumb or index finger), two
with two fingers extended (either thumb and index finger or index and middle finger),
three with three fingers extended (thumb, index and middle finger), and four with
four fingers extended (either thumb to ring finger or index finger to pinky). Finally,
five is expressed with all five fingers extend. The number signs six to ten are expressed
on two hands. The non-dominant hand has all five fingers extended and the dominant
hand expresses six to ten just like one to five. Number signs for numbers higher than
10 are derived from this basis. In DGS, the number signs eleven, twelve, thirteen, …
as well as twenty, thirty, … and one-hundred, two-hundred, three-hundred … use
the same handshape as the basic number signs one to nine. In addition, they have a
specific movement expressing the range of the number (i.e. 11 to 19, 20 to 90, 100 to
900, or 1000 to 9000). The signs for 11 to 19 are, for example, performed either with a
circular horizontal movement or with a short movement, changing the facing of the
hand(s) (at the beginning of this short movement, the palm is facing the signer, at the
end it faces down) and the signs for 20 to 90 are produced with a repeated movement
of the extended fingers. Finally note that complex numbers like 25, 225, or 2225 are
composed by the basic number signs: 25 is, for instance, a combination of the signs
five and twenty. An exception are the numbers 22, 33, 44, … which are expressed by
sideward reduplication of two, three, four, …
As opposed to DGS, ASL only uses one hand to express the basic numbers 1 to 10.
one starts with the extended index finger, two adds the extended middle finger, three
the ring finger, four the pinky, and five the thumb. Hence, the ASL number sign for
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology124
five is identical to the corresponding sign in DGS. In ASL, the number signs for 6 to
9 are expressed through contact between the thumb and one of the other four fingers:
in six, the thumb has contact with the pinky, in seven with the ring finger, in eight
with the middle finger, and in nine with the index finger. ten looks like one version
of one in DGS, i.e. only the thumb is extended. In addition, ten has a horizontal
movement of the wrist. Other one-handed number systems differ from ASL in that
they use the same signs for the numbers 6 to 9 as one variant in DGS uses for 1 to 5:
six is expressed with the extended thumb, seven with the extended thumb and index
finger, eight with the extended thumb, index, and middle finger, … In ASL, higher
numbers are expressed by producing the signs for the digits in linear order, i.e. ‘24’ =
two + four, ‘124’ = one + two + four. Note that the number system of ASL, just like
that of DGS, also shows some dialectal variation.
A comparison of DGS and ASL shows that two-handed number systems like DGS
only use five different handshapes, whereas one-handed systems like ASL use ten
different handshapes. Moreover, the two-handed system of DGS expresses higher numbers
through a combination of basic number and movement. The one-handed system
of ASL expresses higher number by a linear combination of the signs for the digits.
And finally, DGS, like German, expresses higher numbers by inversion (i.e. ‘24’ is four
C twenty). In ASL, the linear order must not be inverted.
4. Verb agreement and classifier verbs
In the last section, we have seen that in sign languages, pronouns can express number
by modification of movement (i.e. by the addition of a sweeping movement) or by
repetition of the pronoun (i.e. a distributed pointing motion towards multiple locations).
In this section we will discuss two related phenomena: the plural forms of agreement
verbs and classifier verbs. We will see that both use the sign space in a similar
way to express plurality. A comprehensive overview of verb agreement can be found
in chapter 7. Classifier verbs are extensively discussed in Zwitserlood (2003), Benedicto
and Brentari (2004), and in chapter 8 on classifiers.
4.1. Verb agreement
In spoken and sign languages verb agreement seems to have primarily developed from
pronouns (for sign languages see Pfau/Steinbach 2006a, 2011). In both modalities, pronominalization
and verb agreement are related grammatical phenomena. Hence, it
comes as no surprise that agreement verbs use the same spatial means as pronouns
to express pluralization. Agreement verbs agree with the referential indices of their
arguments, which are realized in the sign space as R-loci. Verbs, like pronouns, have a
distributive and a collective plural form. The distributive form of plural objects is, for
instance, realized by multiple reduplication along an arc movement in front of the
signer. In some contexts, the reduplication can also be more random and with onehanded
agreement verbs, it can also be performed with both hands. The collective form
is realized with a sweeping movement across the locations associated with the R-loci,
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 125
i.e. by an arc movement without reduplication. The plural feature is thus realized spatially
in the sign space. In chapter 7, Mathur and Rathmann propose the following
realizations of the plural feature in verb agreement. According to (6), the singular
feature is unmarked and realized as a zero form. The marked plural feature encodes
the collective reading. The distributive plural form in (6ii) may be derived by means
of reduplication of the singular form (for a more detailed discussion, cf. chapter 7 on
verb agreement and the references cited there).
(6) Number
i. Features
Plural (collective): [Cpl] 4 horizontal arc (marked)
Singular: [Ϫpl] 4 Ø
ii. Reduplication: exhaustive (distributive), dual
Note that phonetic constraints may cause agreement gaps. Mathur and Rathmann
(2001, 2011) show that articulatory constraints block first person plural object forms
such as ‘give us’ or ‘analyze us’ in ASL or third person plural object forms with reduplication
of the verbs (i.e. distributive reading) like ask in ASL or tease in DGS (for
phonetic constraints, cf. also chapter 2, Phonetics).
4.2. Classifier verbs
Many spoken languages do not mark plural on the head noun but use specific numeral
classifier constructions. Sign languages also have so-called classifier constructions. They
make extensive use of classifier handshapes, which can be used with verbs of motion
and location. Sign language classifiers can be compared to noun class markers in spoken
languages. Classifier verbs are particularly interesting in the context of plural
marking since the plurality of an entity can also be expressed by means of a spatially
modified classifier verb. Consider the examples in Figures 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7, which show
the pluralisation of classifier verbs. Figure 6.5 illustrates the sideward reduplication of
the classifier verb. In Figure 6.6, a simple sideward movement is added to the classifier
verb and in Figure 6.7 more random reduplications performed by both hands in alternation
are added.
Fig. 6.5: Sideward reduplication of a classifier verb in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by Buske Verlag.
Reprinted with permission.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology126
Fig. 6.6: Simple sideward movement of a classifier verb in DGS.
Fig. 6.7: Random reduplication of a classifier verb in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by Buske Verlag.
Reprinted with permission.
Like verbal agreement inflection, the illustrated spatial modification of classifier
verbs is a clear instance of verbal plural inflection (for a detailed discussion of the
differences between classifier verbs in sign languages and numeral nominal classification
in spoken languages, cf. Pfau/Steinbach 2006b). Consequently, numerals or quantifiers
do not block the reduplication of the classifier handshapes. The examples in Figures
6.5 to 6.7 would also be grammatical if we added the quantifier many or the
numeral five (i.e. five bike clvertical.pl+>+>). Moreover, the spatial modification of
classifier verbs does not only express the plurality of the referent the classifier verb
agrees with. It usually also induces the additional semantic effect of a particular spatial
localization or arrangement of the referents.
Interestingly, the number of reduplications and the spatial localization of agreement
and classifier verbs are not grammatically restricted and can thus be modified more
freely. Therefore, the whole sign space can be used, as is illustrated in the examples in
Figures 6.5 to 6.7 above. If a right handed signer wants to express that exactly five
bikes are standing in a certain spatial relation on the left, s/he can repeat the classifier
verb five times in the left ipsilateral sign space. Conversely, the simple plural form of
lateral nouns is usually restricted to two repetitions and to the lateral area of the
sign space.
In section 2 we mentioned that in many sign languages midsagittal nouns such as
house or flower also permit sideward reduplication of the whole sign (cf. Figure 6.8).
With these nouns, the semantic effect described for classifier verbs is achieved by sideward
reduplication of the whole sign. Hence, under certain circumstances, sideward
reduplication can also be found with midsagittal nouns. However, in this case the unBrought
to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 127
Fig.6.8: Sideward reduplication of midsagittal nouns in DGS. Copyright © 2005 by Buske Verlag.
Reprinted with permission.
marked plural form, i.e. simple reduplication, blocks the simple plural interpretation.
Like sideward reduplication of classifier verbs, sideward reduplication of midsagittal
nouns does not only express a simple plurality of the entity the noun refers to, but also
a specific spatial configuration of these entities. Again, more than two repetitions and
the use of the whole sign space is possible.
The spatial interpretation of sideward reduplication of agreement and classifier
verbs and certain nouns is clearly modality-specific. Since sign languages make use of
the three-dimensional sign space, they have the unique potential to establish a relation
between plural reduplication and spatial localization of referents (for similar observations
in LIS, NGT, BSL, and TİD, cf. Pizzuto/Corazza 1996; Nijhof/Zwitserlood 1999;
Sutton-Spence/Woll 1999; Zwitserlood/Perniss/Özyürek 2011).
5. Pluralization across modalities
Finally, in this section we compare the expression of plurality in sign languages to
pluralization in spoken languages. First we discuss constraints on plural marking in
spoken language before we turn to differences in the constraints on plural marking
and in the output forms in both modalities.
5.1. Pluralization in spoken languages
Plural marking in spoken languages has some interesting similarities to plural marking
in sign languages (for a detailed discussion of spoken languages, cf. Corbett 2000). As
in sign languages, plural marking in spoken languages is determined by phonological
properties of the noun stem. Moreover, many spoken languages also use reduplication
to express the plural feature. In section 2, we have seen that reduplication is the basic
means of plural marking in sign languages. Sideward reduplication has been described
as a case of partial reduplication and simple reduplication as complete reduplication.
Likewise, in spoken languages, pluralization can also be realized by means of partial
and complete reduplication. Partial reduplication is illustrated in example (7a) from
Ilokano, where only the first syllable of the bisyllabic stem is reduplicated (Hayes/
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology128
Abad 1989, 357). The example from Warlpiri in (7b) is an example of complete reduplication
(Nash 1986, 130). Although both modalities use complete and partial reduplication
as a means of plural marking, there are also two crucial differences: (i) only sign
languages allow for sideward reduplication since they use a three-dimensional sign
space and (ii) reduplication in sign languages usually involves two repetitions (i.e. triplication)
whereas reduplication in spoken languages usually only involves one repetition
(but see Blust (2001) for some rare examples of triplication in spoken languages).
(7) a. púsa a’. pus-púsa [Ilokano]
‘cat’ ‘cats’
b. kurdu b’. kurdu-kurdu [Warlpiri]
‘child’ ‘children’
There are two more obvious similarites between plural marking in both modalities: (i)
both, sign and spoken languages, use zero marking and, (ii) the form of a plural morpheme
may be determined by phonological properties of the stem. In German, for
instance, zero marking is quite common (i.e. Segel (‘sail’ and ‘sails’) or Fehler (‘mistake’
and ‘mistakes’). Phonological restrictions can be found, for instance, in English and
Turkish. In English, the plural suffix /z/ assimilates the feature [Gvoice] of the preceding
phoneme, i.e. [z] in dogs but [s] in cats). In Turkish, suffix vowels harmonize with
the last vowel of the stem with respect to certain features. In pluralization, the relevant
feature for the plural suffix -ler is [G back], i.e. ev-ler (‘houses’) but çocuk-lar (‘chil-
dren’).
Besides these cross-modal similarities in nominal plural formation, there are two
obvious differences between spoken and sign languages. First, many spoken languages,
unlike sign languages, use affixation and word internal stem change as the basic means
of plural inflection. Affixation is illustrated in the English and Turkish examples above.
An example for stem change is the German word Mütter, which is the plural form of
Mutter (‘mother’). In this example, the plural is only marked by the umlaut, i.e. a stem
internal vowel change. In sign languages, stem-internal changes, which are frequently
observed in other morphological operations, are rarely used for plural marking. Simultaneous
reduplication of the sign by the non-dominant hand (as attested, for instance,
with some ÖGS signs) is an exception to this generalization. Likewise, sign languages
do not use plural affixes – one exception might be the horizontal arc path movement
that is used to express plurality in some sign languages (cf. section 2). The lack of
affixation in plural marking in the visual-manual modality reflects a general tendency
of sign languages to avoid sequential affixation (cf. Aronoff/Meir/Sandler 2005).
Second, in spoken languages, the choice of a plural form is not always constrained
phonologically but grammatically (i.e. gender), semantically (i.e. semantically defined
noun classes), or lexically (cf. Pfau/Steinbach 2006b). The choice of the plural form in
German is, for instance, to a large extend idiosyncratic and not determined by phonological
properties of the stem. This is illustrated by the German examples in (8). Although
the two words in (8ab) have the same rhyme, they take different plural suffixes.
In (8cd) we are dealing with two homonymous lexical items, which form their plural
by means of different suffixes where only the former is accompanied by umlaut (cf.
Köpke 1993; Neef 1998, 2000).
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 129
(8) a. Haus a’. Häus-er [German]
‘house’ ‘houses’
b. Maus b’. Mäus-e
‘mouse’ ‘mice’
c. Bank c’. Bänk-e
‘bench’ ‘benches’
d. Bank d’. Bank-en
‘bank’ ‘banks’
A further difference concerns number agreement. Unlike in most sign languages, plurality
can be realized more than once within a noun phrase in many spoken languages.
The English example in (9a) illustrates that some determiners display at least number
agreement with the head noun (but not with the adjective). The German example in
(9b) illustrates that within the noun phrase, plurality is usually expressed on all elements
on the left side of the head noun, i.e. the possessive and the adjective. Note
that in both languages, the presence of a numeral does not block number agreement
within the noun phrase.
(9) a. these (two) old cars [English]
b. mein-e zwei alt-en Auto-s [German]
1sg.poss-pl two old-pl car-pl
‘my (two) old cars’
Other spoken languages pattern with sign languages. In Hungarian, for instance, the
head noun can only be marked for plural if the noun phrase does not contain a numeral
or quantifier, cf. (10) (Ortmann 2000, 251f). Hence, like in sign languages, plurality is
only indicated once within the noun phrase in these languages. Hence, without numerals
and quantifiers, only the head noun inflects for plural. Multiple realization of the
plural feature within the noun phrase as in example (10c) leads to ungrammaticality
(cf. Ortmann 2000, 2004).
(10) a. hajó a’. hajó-k [Hungarian]
ship ship-pl
‘ship’ ‘ships’
b. öt/sok hajó b’. *öt/sok hajó-k
five/many ship five/many ship-pl
‘five/many ships’ ‘five/many ships’
c. gyors hajó-k c’. *gyors-ak hajó-k
fast ship-pl fast-pl ship-pl
‘fast ships’ ‘fast ships’
Finally note that in some spoken languages, plural cannot be marked on the head noun
but must be marked on other elements within the noun phrase. In Japanese, for instance,
a noun does not morphologically inflect for the plural feature. Example (11a)
illustrates that plurality is marked within the noun phrase by means of numerals or
quantifiers, which are accompanied by numeral classifiers, cf. Kobuchi-Philip (2003).
In Tagalog, plurality is also expressed within the noun phrase by means of a number
word, i.e. mga, as illustrated in (11b), cf. Corbett (2000, 133f).
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology130
(11) a. [san-nin-no gakusei-ga] hon-o katta [Japanese]
3-cl-gen student-nom book-acc bought
‘Three students bought a book.’
b. mga bahay b’. mga tubig
pl house pl water [Tapalog]
‘houses’ ‘cups/units of water’
Spoken languages like Japanese and Tagalog equal IPSL, where nouns cannot be reduplicated
and the plural feature must be expressed by a numeral or quantifier. However,
unlike in Japanese and Tagalog, in most sign languages, nouns can be overtly inflected
for plural and numerals and quantifiers only block overt plural marking on the head
noun within the noun phrase.
5.2. Output forms
So far, we discussed differences and similarities in the constraints on plural formation
in spoken and sign languages. Now we turn to the output of plural formation. In plural
formation, we do not only find examples of simple determination but also examples
of under-, over-, and hyperdetermination of the plural feature. Let us first consider
morphological underdetermination. Underdetermined plurals involve zero marking
and are attested in both modalities. The second category, simple determination, is quite
common in spoken languages since in affixation, stem internal change or reduplication,
one morphological marker is usually used to expresses the plural feature overtly (i.e.
an affix, a stem internal change, or a reduplicant respectively). By contrast, in sign
language, there is no case of simple determination of the plural feature. Reconsider
midsagittal nouns, which typically allow simple reduplication. At first sight, the plural
form of the noun book in Figure 6.3 above looks like a case of simple determination.
The plural feature is only expressed once by means of reduplication. No additional
morphological marker is used. However, as already mentioned above, in sign languages
the base noun is not only repeated once but twice, i.e. it is triplicated. Actually, a single
repetition of the base noun would be sufficient to express the plural feature. Therefore,
triplication can be analyzed as an instance of the third category, i.e. overdetermination.
In spoken languages, overdetermination usually involves double marking (i.e. stem
change in combination with affixation) as illustrated in (8a’–c’) above. Double marking
clearly overdetermines the plural form since it would suffice to express the plural form
by one marker only. The fourth category, hyperdetermination, is only attested in sign
language pluralization. Recall that the plural form of lateral nouns such as child in
Figure 6.4 above combine triplication with sideward movement (i.e., the reduplicant is
not faithful to the base with respect to location features). This type of double overdetermination
can be categorized as an instance of hyperdetermination. While overdetermination
of morphosyntactic categories (e.g., number, agreement, or negation) is quite
common in spoken languages, hyperdetermination is rare.
The following table taken from Pfau and Steinbach (2006b, 176) summarizes the
main similarities and differences in the strategies, quantities, and morphosyntax of
plural marking in both modalities. Recall that affixation and stem change may not be
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 131
Tab. 6.2: Plural marking in spoken and sign languages
spoken languages sign languages
plural marking: strategy
zero marking √ √
affixation √ Ϫ
reduplication √ √
stem change √ Ϫ
plural marking: quantity
underdetermination √ √
simple determination √ Ϫ
overdetermination √ √
hyperdetermination ?? √
expression of plural within the noun phrase
use of numeral classifiers √ / Ϫ Ϫ
number agreement in the noun phrase √ / Ϫ √ / Ϫ
complete absent in sign languages. Nevertheless, both morphological operations are at
least very rare.
5.3. The impact of modality
How can we account for the differences between spoken and sign languages discussed
in the previous sections? The first obvious difference is that only spoken languages
frequently use affixation in plural formation. We already mentioned that the lack of
affixation in sign languages reflects a tendency of the visual-manual modality to avoid
sequential affixation (cf. Aronoff/Meir/Sandler 2005). Moreover, the use of sign space
in verb agreement and classifier verbs is also directly related to the unique property
of the visual-manual modality to use a three-dimensional sign space in front of the
signer to express grammatical or topographic relations. Another interesting difference
is that the two basic plural marking strategies in sign languages involve either over- or
hyperdetermination. Again, this difference seems to be due to specific properties of
the visual-manual modality (cf. Pfau/Steinbach 2006b). Over- and hyperdetermination
seem to increase the visual salience of signs in the sign space. Since much of the manual
signing is perceived in peripheral vision, triplication as well as spatial displacement
enhances phonological contrasts (cf. Siple 1978; Neville/Lawson 1987). In pluralization,
nouns seem to exploit as many of these options as they can. This line of argumentation
is supported by the claim that movements are functionally comparable to sonorous
sounds in spoken language. Sign language syllables can be defined as consisting of one
sequential movement. Triplication increases the phonological weight of the inflected
sign (for syllables in sign language, see chapter 3 on phonology). Another determining
factor might be that a fair number of signs already inherently involve lexical repetition.
Hence, triplication distinguishes lexical repetition from morphosyntactic modification
and is therefore a common feature in the morphosyntax of sign languages. Various
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology132
types of aspectual modification, for instance, also involve triplication (or even more
repetitions, cf. chapter 9 on Tense, Aspect, and Modality).
The clear tendency to avoid number agreement within noun phrases in sign languages
can be related to modality-specific properties of the articulators. Sign language
articulators are relatively massive and move in the transparent sign space (Meier 2002).
This is true especially for the manual articulators involved in plural reduplication.
Therefore, an economy constraint might block reduplication of the head noun in noun
phrases whenever it is not necessary to express the plural feature (i.e. if the noun
phrase contains a numeral or quantifier). Likewise, the strong influence of phonological
features on plural formation can be explained by these specific properties of the
articulators. In sign languages, many morphological operations such as verb agreement,
classification, or reciprocity depend on phonological properties of the underlying stem
and many morphemes consist of just one phonological feature (cf. Pfau/Steinbach
(2005a) and chapter 3, Phonology; for similar effects on the interface between phonology
and semantics, cf. Wilbur (2010)).
6. Conclusion
We have illustrated that sign languages use various plural marking strategies in the
nominal and verbal domain. In the nominal domain, plurals are typically formed by
simple or sideward reduplication of the noun or by zero marking. Strictly speaking
sign languages do not use reduplication but triplication, i.e. two repetitions of the base
sign. Besides, some sign languages have specific strategies at their disposal such as an
additional sweep movement, movement alternation or non-manual markers. In all sign
languages investigated so far, the nominal strategies are basically constrained by phonological
properties of the underlying nominal stem. Another typical property of many
(but not all) sign languages is that plural reduplication of the head noun is blocked if
the noun phrase contains a numeral or quantifier. Consequently, reduplication is only
possible in bare noun phrases and therefore predicted to be infrequent. In the verbal
domain, sign languages make use of the sign space to inflect agreement and classifier
verbs for plural.
The comparison of sign languages to spoken languages has revealed that there are
some common strategies of pluralization in both modalities but also some modalityspecific
strategies and restrictions. Among the strategies both modalities choose to
mark plurality on nouns are reduplication and zero marking. By contrast, affixation
and stem internal changes are a frequent means of spoken language pluralization but
not (or only rarely) found in sign language pluralization. Another similarity between
both modalities is that the choice of strategy may depend on phonological properties
of the underlying noun. Moreover, in both modalities, noun phrase internal number
agreement may be blocked. However, while in sign languages number agreement
within the noun phrase seems to be the exception, number agreement is quite common
in many spoken languages. And finally, while under- and overdetermination can be
found in both modalities, simple determination is attested only in spoken languages
and hyperdetermination only in sign languages.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 133
Of course, much more research on the typology of pluralization in sign languages
is necessary in order to document and understand the extent of phonological, morphological,
and syntactic variation across different sign languages and across spoken and
sign languages.
7. Literature
Aronoff, Mark/Meir, Irit/Sandler, Wendy
2005 The Paradox of Sign Language Morphology. In: Language 81, 301Ϫ344.
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte/Cokely, Dennis
1980 American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Grammar and Culture. Silver
Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers.
Benedicto, Elena/Brentari, Diane
2004 Where Did All the Arguments Go? Argument-changing Properties of Classifiers in
ASL. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 743Ϫ810.
Blust, Robert
2001 Thao Triplication. In: Oceanic Linguistics 40, 324Ϫ335.
Corbett, Greville G.
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cormier, Kearsy
2007 Do All Pronouns Point? Indexicality of First Person Plural Pronouns in BSL and ASL.
In: Perniss, Pamela/Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus (eds.), Visible Variation: Comparative
Studies on Sign Language Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 63Ϫ101.
Fernández-Viader, María del Pilar/Fuentes, Mariana
2008 The Systems of Numerals in Catalan Sign Language (LSC) and Spanish Sign Language
(LSE): A Comparative Study. In: Quadros, Ronice M. de (ed.), Sign Languages: Spinning
and Unraveling the Past, Present, and Future. Forty-five Papers and Three Posters
from the 9th
Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianopolis,
Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: www.editora-
arara-azul.com.br/EstudosSurdos.php].
Fuentes, Mariana/Massone, María Ignacia/Fernández-Viader, María del Pilar/Makotrinsky, Alejandro/Pulgarín,
Francisca
2010 Numeral-incorporating Roots in Numeral Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Two
Sign Languages. In: Sign Language Studies 11, 55Ϫ75.
Harder, Rita
2003 Meervoud in de NGT. Manuscript, Nederlands Gebarencentrum.
Hayes, Bruce/Abad, May
1989 Reduplication and Syllabification in Ilokano. In: Lingua 77, 331Ϫ374.
Heyerick, Isabelle/Braeckevelt, Mieke van
2008 Rapport Onderzoeksmethodologie Meervoudsvorming in Vlaamse Gebarentaal.
Vlaamse GebaarentaalCentrum (vgtC), Antwerpen.
Heyerick, Isabelle/Braeckevelt, Mieke van/Weerdt, Danny de/Van der Herreweghe, Mieke/Vermeerbergen,
Myriam
2009 Plural Formation in Flemish Sign Language. Paper Presented at Current Research in
Sign Linguistics (CILS), Namur.
Iversen, Wiebke
2008 Keine Zahl ohne Zeichen. Der Einfluss der medialen Eigenschaften der DGS-Zahlzeichen
auf deren mentale Verarbeitung. PhD Dissertation, University of Aachen.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology134
Iversen, Wiebke/Nuerk, Hans-Christoph/Jäger, Ludwig/Willmes, Klaus
2006 The Influence of an External Symbol System on Number Parity Representation, or
What’s Odd About 6? In: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 730Ϫ736.
Iversen, Wiebke/Nuerk, Hans-Christoph/Willmes, Klaus
2004 Do Signers Think Differently? The Processing of Number Parity in Deaf Participants.
In: Cortex 40, 176Ϫ178.
Jones, M./Mohr, K.
1975 A Working Paper on Plurals in ASL. Manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Kobuchi-Philip, Mana
2003 Syntax and Semantics of the Japanese Floating Numeral Quantifier. Paper Presented
at Incontro di Grammatica Generativa XXIX, Urbino.
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael
1993 Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen: Versuch einer kognitiven Morphologie.
Tübingen: Narr.
Kubuş, Okan
2008 An Analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) Phonology and Morphology. MA Thesis,
The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Leybaert, Jacqueline/Cutsem, Marie-Noelle van
2002 Counting in Sign Language. In: Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 81, 482Ϫ501.
McBurney, Susan Lloyd
2002 Pronominal Reference in Signed and Spoken Language: Are Grammatical Categories
Modality-dependent? In: Meier, Richard/Cormier, Kearsy/Quinto-Pozos, David (eds.),
Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 329Ϫ369.
McKee, David/McKee, Rachel/Major, George
2008 Sociolinguistic Variation in NZSL Numerals. In: Quadros, Ronice M. de (ed.), Sign
Languages: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present, and Future. Forty-five Papers
and Three Posters from the 9th
Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference,
Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at:
www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/EstudosSurdos.php].
Mathur, Gaurav/Rathmann, Christian
2001 Why not ‘give-us’: An Articulatory Constraint in Sign Languages. In: Dively, Valerie/
Metzger, Melanie/Taub, Sarah/Baer, Anne-Marie (eds.), Signed Languages: Discoveries
from International Research. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1Ϫ26.
Mathur, Gaurav/Rathmann, Christian
2010 Verb Agreement in Sign Language Morphology. In: Brentari, Diane (ed.), Sign Languages
(Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
173Ϫ196.
Mathur, Gaurav/Rathmann, Christian
2011 Two Types of Nonconcatenative Morphology in Signed Language. In: Mathur, Gaurav/
Napoli, Donna Jo (eds.), Deaf Around the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
54Ϫ82.
Meier, Richard
2002 Why Different, Why the Same? Explaining Effects and Non-effects of Modality Upon
Linguistic Structure in Sign and Speech. In: Meier, Richard/Cormier, Kearsy/QuintoPozos,
David (eds.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1Ϫ25.
Neef, Martin
1998 The Reduced Syllable Plural in German. In: Fabri, Ray/Ortmann, Albert/Parodi, Teresa
(eds.), Models of Inflection. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 244Ϫ265.
Neef, Martin
2000 Morphologische und syntaktische Konditionierung. In: Booij, Geert et al. (ed.), Morphologie:
Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Berlin: de Gruyter,
473Ϫ484.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
6. Plurality 135
Neville, Helen J./Lawson, Donald S.
1987 Attention to Central and Peripheral Visual Space in a Movement Detection Task: An
Event-related Potential and Behavioral Study (Parts I, II, III). In: Brain Research 405,
253Ϫ294.
Nijhof, Sibylla/Zwitserlood, Inge
1999 Pluralization in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). In: Don, Jan/Sanders, Ted
(eds.), OTS Yearbook 1998Ϫ1999. Utrecht: Utrechts Instituut voor Linguistiek OTS,
58Ϫ78.
Ortmann, Albert
2000 Where Plural Refuses to Agree: Feature Unification and Morphological Economy. In:
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 249Ϫ288.
Ortmann, Albert
2004 A Factorial Typology of Number Marking in Noun Phrases: The Tension of Economy
and Faithfulness. In: Müller, Gereon/Gunkel, Lutz/Zifonun, Gisela (eds.), Explorations
in Nominal Inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 229Ϫ267.
Perniss, Pamela
2001 Numerus und Quantifikation in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. MA Thesis, University
of Cologne.
Perry, Deborah
2004 The Use of Reduplication in ASL Plurals. MA Thesis, Boston University.
Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus
2003 Optimal Reciprocals in German Sign Language. In: Sign Language & Linguistics 6,
3Ϫ42.
Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus
2005a Backward and Sideward Reduplication in German Sign Language. In: Hurch, Bernhard
(ed.), Studies on Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 569Ϫ594.
Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus
2005b Plural Formation in German Sign Language: Constraints and Strategies. In: Leuninger,
Helen/Happ, Daniela (eds.), Gebärdensprache. Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung (Linguistische
Berichte Special Issue 13). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 111Ϫ144.
Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus
2006a Modality-independent and Modality-specific Aspects of Grammaticalization in Sign
Languages. In: Linguistics in Potsdam 24, 5Ϫ94.
Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus
2006b Pluralization in Sign and in Speech: A Cross-modal Typological Study. In: Linguistic
Typology 10, 135Ϫ182.
Pfau, Roland/Steinbach, Markus
2011 Grammaticalization in Sign Languages. In: Heine, Bernd/Narrog, Heiko (eds.), Handbook
of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 681Ϫ693.
Pizzuto, Elena/Corazza, Serena
1996 Noun Morphology in Italian Sign Language. In: Lingua 98, 169Ϫ196.
Sandler, Wendy
1999 The Medium and the Message: Prosodic Interpretation of Linguistic Content in Israeli
Sign Language. In: Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2), 187Ϫ215.
Schmaling, Constanze
2000 Maganar Hannu, Language of the Hands: A Descriptive Analysis of Hausa Sign Language.
Hamburg: Signum.
Siple, Patricia
1978 Visual Constraints for Sign Language Communication. In: Sign Language Studies 19,
97Ϫ112.
Skant, Andrea/Dotter, Franz/Bergmeister, Elisabeth/Hilzensauer, Marlene/Hobel, Manuela/
Krammer, Klaudia/Okorn, Ingeborg/Orasche, Christian/Orter, Reinhold/Unterberger, Natalie
2002 Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Klagenfurt: Forschungszentrum für
Gebärdensprache und Hörgeschädigtenkommunikation.
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM
II. Morphology136
Stavans, Anat
1996 One, Two, or More: The Expression of Number in Israeli Sign Language. In: International
Review of Sign Linguistics 1, 95Ϫ114.
Sutton-Spence, Rachel/Woll, Bencie
1999 The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Valli, Clayton/Lucas, Ceil
1992 Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Wilbur, Ronnie
1987 American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions. Boston: Little,
Brown & Co.
Wilbur, Ronnie
2010 The Semantics-Phonology Interface. In: Brentari, Diane (ed.), Sign Languages (Cambridge
Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 357Ϫ382.
Zeshan, Ulrike
2000 Sign Language in Indo-Pakistan: A Description of a Signed Language. Amsterdam: Ben-
jamins.
Zwitserlood, Inge
2003 Classifiying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Utrecht: LOT.
Zwitserlood, Inge/Perniss, Pamela/Aslı Özyürek
2011 An Empirical Investigation of Plural Expression in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Are
There Modality Effects? Manuscript, Radboud University Nijmegen and Max Planck
Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.
Markus Steinbach, Göttingen (Germany)
7. Verb agreement
1. Introduction
2. Background on agreement
3. Realization of agreement
4. Candidacy for agreement
5. Conclusion: agreement in sign and spoken languages
6. Literature
Abstract
This chapter compares several theoretical approaches to the phenomenon often labeled
‘verb agreement’ in sign languages. The overall picture that emerges is that cross-modally,
there are both similarities and differences with respect to agreement. Sign languages seem
to be similar to spoken languages in that they realize the person and number features of
the arguments of the verbs through agreement, suggesting an agreement process that is
Brought to you by | Masarykova Univerzita v Brne
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/31/17 11:16 AM